RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE

[2020] EWHC 648 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 648 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Lane J)
18 March 2020

The court anonymised a requested person and her immediate family in an extradition judgment where the requested person’s daughter suffered from a serious condition such that identification would likely lead to harm to the family. However, a very good case had to be made for a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence abroad to avoid being named in English extradition proceedings.

[2020] EWHC 409 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 409 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Nicol J)
25 February 2020

The mental condition of a man who claimed to have been the victim of trafficking was not such as to render his extradition to the Czech Republic oppressive or a disproportionate interference with his right to private or family life under ECHR art.8.

QBD (Admin) (Holman J)
4 February 2020

An appeal against extradition to Poland was allowed on the basis of fresh evidence both as to the difficult life history of the appellant and his partner and the circumstances of their relationship since the extradition hearing. The offender had already undergone significant punishment and, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the ECHR art.8 rights of the appellant and his partner outweighed the normally weighty public interest in extradition.

[2020] EWCA Crim 95
[2020] EWCA Crim 95
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Foster J)
28 January 2020

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67(3), which protected against voyeurism in the form of the recording of another person doing a private act, was not limited to protecting the privacy of a complainant from secret filming by someone who was not present during the private act in question. A participant to certain activity could be guilty of a s.67(3) offence if they secretly recorded what was otherwise a lawful event in which they had participated.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2238
[2019] EWCA Crim 2238
CA (Crim Div) (Green LJ, Nicol J, Judge Walden-Smith)
3 December 2019

A restraining order that prohibited an offender from entering the town of Stevenage for 10 years was reasonable, necessary, and served the legitimate purpose of protecting the offender’s former partner from violence. Although restraining orders tended to focus upon specific roads or premises rather than whole towns, that did not mean that in an appropriate case a broader restriction might not be appropriate. The evaluation was always fact- and context-specific.

QBD (Admin) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019

A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.

QBD (Admin) (Stuart-Smith J)
21 November 2019

Fresh evidence submitted by a requested person did not support the conclusion that her two young children would be left homeless if she was extradited, but rather that her partner would be permitted to look after them. Accordingly, her extradition to Lithuania to face trial for the offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs did not breach ECHR art.8.

[2019] EWCA Civ 2025
[2019] EWCA Civ 2025
CA (Civ Div) (Floyd LJ, Baker LJ, Green LJ)
21 November 2019

Although the principle that the welfare of the child was paramount did not apply to applications for an order for secure accommodation under the Children Act 1989 s.25, the court was not required to abdicate all responsibility for evaluating the impact of the proposed placement on the child’s welfare. The court was also obliged to consider whether the making of such an order was proportionate, that being one of the “relevant criteria” for deciding whether keeping a child in secure accommodation was justified. The court had to carry out its own evaluation of whether the order would safeguard and promote the child’s welfare, but the intensity of that evaluation would depend on the facts of the case.

[2019] EWHC 3123 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 3123 (Admin)
DC (Hickinbottom LJ, Johnson J)
20 November 2019

It had been lawful for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to add r.7(1A) to the Prison Rules 1999, which removed his own power to transfer life prisoners to open conditions if they were subject to a deportation order in respect of which they had no extant right to appeal. Treating such prisoners who, at the end of their period of detention, were inherently unlikely to resettle in UK communities, differently from other prisoners, by not affording them an opportunity to be transferred to open conditions or enjoy release on temporary licence, was not a manifestly disproportionate means of pursuing the legitimate aim of prioritising the other prisoners who were likely to resettle in UK communities.

[2019] NIQB 89
[2019] NIQB 89
QBD (NI) (Keegan J)
14 October 2019

The court considered whether the policy of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to review and retain a disruption notice breached the ECHR art.8. On analysis of the policy documentation, the retention period for the notice was 100 years or until the applicant turned 100, with no possibility of review and that breached the applicant’s Convention rights.

Scroll to top